I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
‘(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark EMCURE — Earlier EU and national word marks EMCUR — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the goods and services — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))’
Language of the case: English
Applicant: Emcur Gesundheitsmittel aus Bad Ems GmbH (Bad Ems, Germany) (represented by: K. Bröcker, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Bhosari, India)
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2016 (Case R 790/2016-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Emcur Gesundheitsmittel aus Bad Ems and Emcure Pharmaceuticals.
The Court:
1.Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 13 December 2016 (Case R 790/2016-2) in so far as it concerns the services in Classes 42 and 44 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;
2.Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
3.Orders EUIPO and Emcur Gesundheitsmittel aus Bad Ems GmbH to bear their own costs.
*
(*1) OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.